Council members would pay $7,000 more under terms other city workers face
Critics say that all city employees should have to contribute equally

Pension costs they’re not paying

Elected official/ Months left in office*/ Monthly taxpayer subsidy/ Total subsidy

Bob Filner 89 $774.83 $68,959.87

Jan Goldsmith 41 $1,493.51 $61,233.91

David Alvarez 64 $581.28 $37,201.92

Marti Emerald 89 $581.28 $51,733.92

Todd Gloria 41 $581.28 $23,832.48

Sherri Lightner 41 $581.28 $23,832.48

$

Amount city would save with 50/50 split on pension contributions: $266,794.58

*Months left in office is as of July 1, 2013. Assumes re-election to fullest extent.

Source: U-T calculations based on city pension data

The voter-mandated overhaul of San Diego’s pension system has had a wide-ranging effect on retirement benefits for the city’s roughly 10,000 employees, but there’s a select few who haven’t seen any changes and continue to receive a big financial break at the expense of taxpayers.

Six of the city’s elected officials — four City Council members, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith and Mayor Bob Filner — continue to have taxpayers pay the vast majority of the costs for their future pensions even though voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition B last June. That initiative calls for city workers to pay a “substantially equal” amount of annual pension costs, which translates into a roughly 50/50 split of the expense, and specifically prohibits the city from paying any portion of a worker’s half of the costs.

Most of the city’s 7,700 workers still eligible for pensions have been paying their half of the cost for years after former Mayor Jerry Sanders negotiated that into labor deals. Proposition B makes that mandatory for all workers going forward and will be reflected in labor contracts set to begin July 1.

No such change has been made for elected officials because the municipal code includes a hard cap on how much they can contribute. They currently pay 25 percent of costs while taxpayers fund the other 75 percent.

The City Council could change the law, but it would require four of its members — Democrats David Alvarez, Marti Emerald, Todd Gloria and Sherri Lightner — to vote against their own economic interests. A change to a 50/50 split would force them to pay nearly $7,000 more annually toward their pensions, or about twice what they pay now, according to a U-T analysis of pension system data.

The numbers are even higher for Filner and Goldsmith because of their larger salaries. To pay half of their costs, they would need to contribute an additional $9,300 and $17,900, respectively.

The price tag is so high because of a simple fact: Elected officials receive a far more generous pension benefit than other workers and can start collecting it as soon as they leave office rather than waiting until their 50s or 60s like everyone else. For example, two former councilmen began drawing a city pension in their 30s.

A matter of fairness?

Some critics say the issue is one of fairness as the money involved — a combined $55,000 annually — is a pittance compared to the city’s $1.15 billion operating budget. There’s also a legal question over whether Proposition B requires the elimination of the taxpayer subsidy for elected officials.